Wind Turbines on Lake Ontario!

[Lucky13]

As someone who is potentially affected by the proposed installation in the Central Tug Hill Plateau, also 600 footers with 400 foot blades, and maybe more than 100 of them, I feel everyone's pain about having their own little piece of the picture and the surface disrupted.  I recall when the Cohocton area project went in and it was supposed to have a minimal aesthetic impact, and then my surprise when I drove into Naples from the North after it was completed.  So I guess I support construction of these facilities for the greater good of all, not just the small group of people who recreate out on the Lake in boats, or those of us who lease land for hunting and fishing in undeveloped lands.  But, I want it done equitably, so I think all the subsidies should be ended, so the landowners and developer can't profit twice, once when we give them the money to encourage development, and again when they charge us for the power, and I think all projects should be required to post performance bonds, to ensure that maintenance is done on the projects and IF they should need to be removed, like when the next big inexpensive power source emerges and makes them no longer cost effective, there is money other than from the taxpayers for removal (and certainly, clean up costs from strip mining and fracking and tar sand oil, etc should be included in the costs of that energy, too.)  I also question why I am not hearing about big offshore projects except in Lake Ontario, there is a lot of coast line associated with Long Island, and if they are so safe and quiet, why are they not being built in and around  the urban centers where most of the power will be consumed?   They are unlikely to affect Bald Eagles if they are installed on top of skyscrapers, or out on the footprint of Fresh Kills in Staten Island,  lets make sure everyone getting the juice gets some of the pain associated with it as well !   

[rolmops]

There is a big wind farm off Block Island in state waters of Rhode Island that is working and on January 25 2017 A huge wind farm project was approved in the Atlantic off Long Island and all the way north until 15 miles south of Martha's Vineyard. Technology has made great strides and attitudes have changed.

Edited March 11, 2018 by rolmops

[muskybob]

Actually it's time for people to start thinking outside of the box.  There's more to energy than wind, nuclear, oil, coal, etc.  With the proven Standard Particle Theory of the Higgs Boson last year we are another step toward harnessing the power of our universe. Peter Higgs theorized the boson in the early 60's and it was finally proven mathematically to exist last year. He was honored with the Nobel Prize.  Will we ever see the fruition of harnessing this power?  Probably not in our lifetimes and probably not without being bought up by big business thru the world. Millions have been spent on particle accelerators throughout the world & it's about time for the world to admit it's possible.  There's more to life................THINK!!!

[rolmops]

Thanks for the suggestion. In the meantime my wife is fighting to keep the laser lab open at the U of R.

Higgs Boson is neither in my pay grade nor in my brain grade.

If I am not mistaken, the Higgs Boson particle (the God particle) was observed in the accelerator in Europe last year, but it is not known so far if it is a form of energy that might be harnessed. I would put my bets on cold fusion , but that has been thirty years away for the past forty years, although significant progress has been made in the last few years. It seems that we are stuck with the more earthly forms of energy such as wind and sun for the near future.

Edited August 15, 2018 by rolmops

[muskybob]

Another reason to just say NO!............................

 

https://climatechangedispatch.com/wind-turbines-destroy-habitats/

[rolmops]

On 3/21/2018 at 8:34 AM, muskybob said:

Another reason to just say NO!............................

 

https://climatechangedispatch.com/wind-turbines-destroy-habitats/

They are funded by Exxon

Edited August 15, 2018 by rolmops

[chinook35]

They are here !! Apex clean energy is having a meeting at the Henderson fire hall tonight. ( there was one last night also ). They have kept this meeting very quiet. There is no notification or coverage in the Watertown daily times or on newzjunky I hope the people of Henderson ask the right questions. Apex wants 30 turbines on Galloo island to start My biggest concern is the 30 mile long underwater cable that connects the turbines to Oswego. It will run under some of the richest fishing grounds on Lake Ontario. Will there be exclusion zones ? What effect will voltage leaking have in the fish ? These questions seem to be ignored by Apex. I wish I had known a little earlier about this meeting so I could attend. I am trying to stay on top of this , Apex seems to have gone stealth

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Lake Ontario United

 

[Silver Fox]

I wish they'd stick all these useless turbines up their back side!

Silverfoxcharters.net

[chinook35]

I wish they'd stick all these useless turbines up their back side!

Silverfoxcharters.net

I hope some of the charter caps out if Henderson attend the meeting and can give us some updates


Sent from my iPhone using Lake Ontario United mobile app

[chinook35]

Here’s a story on the project I hope to make the next meeting on Tuesday http://www.wwnytv.com/story/38885003/galloo-island-wind-presentation-draws-crowd#.W3P0Et82r4E.mailto


Sent from my iPhone using Lake Ontario United mobile app

[DTurner]

I share chinook35's concerns about the underwater transmission line and have officially submitted comments to the PSC regarding the potential negative impacts to our world class fishery.  While there have been some studies on the issue, there are still too many unknowns about the effects of the electromagnetic fields created by these cables on migratory fish.  Here are some excerpts from some of the research I found;

 

Some aquatic species, such as the spiny lobster and loggerhead turtle, use the earth’s geomagnetic field as a means of navigation and positioning. The presence of magnetite within many other migratory species, including salmonids, suggests that they also may use the earth’s geomagnetic field for navigation.

According to POLÉO ET AL. (2001), eels and salmonids show a bradycardial response (i. e. a reduction in heartbeat rate) at minimum field strengths. 

The influence of magnetic fields on orientation in teleost fish is still under discussion as some studies reported effects in salmonids and eels while other failed to do so (POLÉO ET AL. 2001). According to references in WARNEKE (2001), eels and several salmonid species react to experimental magnetic fields.

Magnetic fields generated by cables might impair the orientation of fish and marine mammals and therefore negatively affect especially migratory behavior.

Also eggs and larvae of many fish species react very sensitive to electric fields. According to FRICKE (2000) magnetic fields can potentially affect the orientation of marine fish during their migrations or even redirect the migration. Electric fields can have scaring effects on marine fish and probably also redirect the migration pattern.

 

My comments to the PSC suggest that the developer should be required to fund sufficient studies on the potential negative environmental and economic impacts to the Lake Ontario fishery before they are allowed to install and activate any underwater transmission lines that cut through the heart of one of the worlds best fisheries.I found no studies that were focused on trout and salmon in a coldwater/freshwater environment so new specific research should be required for this project.  They (PSC) require research on the impacts to bats and birds from wind projects, our fishery is no less important.

 

You can also let the NYS Public Service Commission (PSC) know your feelings by sending an email to Kathleen H. Burgess, the Secretary of the PSC.  Her email address is, [email protected] and any comments on this project should "Galloo Wind Project (Case 15-F-0327)".  The comment period is open until October 15, 2018 but sooner is better.

 

[chinook35]

Great information. I am in the process of emailing the secretary. I believe Apex is trying to ram this through before any further action can take place 

[chinook35]

I was unable to attend this meeting in Henderson . Here are the reports from the Watertown Daily Times . They still have a low key on news about the project and the fact that Apex was willing to provide free transportation and meals to anyone that would attend the meeting and support the wind farm , speaks volumes .The fact that the boat launches in the area will be commandeered by the construction crews is just now rearing it's ugly head .http://www.watertowndailytimes.com/news03/some-pro-many-con-at-galloo-hearing-20180815

[chinook35]

Here's a little more info on the wind farm .  . The town of Henderson is staging a protest on Oct . 15 th  .There is new information that seems to be ignored . They have found evidence of bald eagle nests and habitation on Galloo Island . The turbines will impact these birds .  Secondly , these turbines will be 600 feet tall ,taller than the statue of liberty . The wind farm on Male ridge near Lowville has 195 turbines that are 400 feet tall . When you crest the hill on Rt 12 heading south , the view is startling . Like some thing directly out of War of the worlds . I will attach a picture ,as I know many of the folks on this website are not from around here . These turbines on Galloo WILL affect all of the people that use the East end of Lake O . From Oz to Henderson . Here is a link to the article on the protest .http://www.wwnytv.com/story/39049514/group-rallies-against-galloo-island-wind-project#.W50Lek-HIA.email

[chinook35]

Just now, chinook35 said:

http://www.wwnytv.com/story/39049514/group-rallies-against-galloo-island-wind-project#.W50Lek-HIA.email

 

[Knotlost Charters]

[Fishnut]

From May 2017. When faced with information such as this climate alarmists resort to their catchphrases of '97% consensus', peer review', '10 years to act' (a favorite of theirs for over 40 years!), 'denier' etc. What they usually avoid is presenting actual facts as a counterargument.
The anti-CO2 line in climate changes is a scam. Always has been, always will be.
...............................................
Wind turbines are neither clean nor green and they provide zero global energy

We urgently need to stop the ecological posturing and invest in gas and nuclear
Matt Ridley


Tantrum of the climate alarmists
Brendan O'Neill

The Global Wind Energy Council recently released its latest report, excitedly boasting that ‘the proliferation of wind energy into the global power market continues at a furious pace, after it was revealed that more than 54 gigawatts of clean renewable wind power was installed across the global market last year’.

You may have got the impression from announcements like that, and from the obligatory pictures of wind turbines in any BBC story or airport advert about energy, that wind power is making a big contribution to world energy today. You would be wrong. Its contribution is still, after decades — nay centuries — of development, trivial to the point of irrelevance.

Here’s a quiz; no conferring. To the nearest whole number, what percentage of the world’s energy consumption was supplied by wind power in 2014, the last year for which there are reliable figures? Was it 20 per cent, 10 per cent or 5 per cent? None of the above: it was 0 per cent. That is to say, to the nearest whole number, there is still no wind power on Earth.

Even put together, wind and photovoltaic solar are supplying less than 1 per cent of global energy demand. From the International Energy Agency’s 2016 Key Renewables Trends, we can see that wind provided 0.46 per cent of global energy consumption in 2014, and solar and tide combined provided 0.35 per cent. Remember this is total energy, not just electricity, which is less than a fifth of all final energy, the rest being the solid, gaseous, and liquid fuels that do the heavy lifting for heat, transport and industry.

Such numbers are not hard to find, but they don’t figure prominently in reports on energy derived from the unreliables lobby (solar and wind). Their trick is to hide behind the statement that close to 14 per cent of the world’s energy is renewable, with the implication that this is wind and solar. In fact the vast majority — three quarters — is biomass (mainly wood), and a very large part of that is ‘traditional biomass’; sticks and logs and dung burned by the poor in their homes to cook with. Those people need that energy, but they pay a big price in health problems caused by smoke inhalation.

Even in rich countries playing with subsidised wind and solar, a huge slug of their renewable energy comes from wood and hydro, the reliable renewables. Meanwhile, world energy demand has been growing at about 2 per cent a year for nearly 40 years. Between 2013 and 2014, again using International Energy Agency data, it grew by just under 2,000 terawatt-hours.

If wind turbines were to supply all of that growth but no more, how many would need to be built each year? The answer is nearly 350,000, since a two-megawatt turbine can produce about 0.005 terawatt-hours per annum. That’s one-and-a-half times as many as have been built in the world since governments started pouring consumer funds into this so-called industry in the early 2000s.

At a density of, very roughly, 50 acres per megawatt, typical for wind farms, that many turbines would require a land area greater than the British Isles, including Ireland. Every year. If we kept this up for 50 years, we would have covered every square mile of a land area the size of Russia with wind farms. Remember, this would be just to fulfil the new demand for energy, not to displace the vast existing supply of energy from fossil fuels, which currently supply 80 per cent of global energy needs.

Do not take refuge in the idea that wind turbines could become more efficient. There is a limit to how much energy you can extract from a moving fluid, the Betz limit, and wind turbines are already close to it. Their effectiveness (the load factor, to use the engineering term) is determined by the wind that is available, and that varies at its own sweet will from second to second, day to day, year to year.

As machines, wind turbines are pretty good already; the problem is the wind resource itself, and we cannot change that. It’s a fluctuating stream of low–density energy. Mankind stopped using it for mission-critical transport and mechanical power long ago, for sound reasons. It’s just not very good.

As for resource consumption and environmental impacts, the direct effects of wind turbines — killing birds and bats, sinking concrete foundations deep into wild lands — is bad enough. But out of sight and out of mind is the dirty pollution generated in Inner Mongolia by the mining of rare-earth metals for the magnets in the turbines. This generates toxic and radioactive waste on an epic scale, which is why the phrase ‘clean energy’ is such a sick joke and ministers should be ashamed every time it passes their lips.

It gets worse. Wind turbines, apart from the fibreglass blades, are made mostly of steel, with concrete bases. They need about 200 times as much material per unit of capacity as a modern combined cycle gas turbine. Steel is made with coal, not just to provide the heat for smelting ore, but to supply the carbon in the alloy. Cement is also often made using coal. The machinery of ‘clean’ renewables is the output of the fossil fuel economy, and largely the coal economy.

A two-megawatt wind turbine weighs about 250 tonnes, including the tower, nacelle, rotor and blades. Globally, it takes about half a tonne of coal to make a tonne of steel. Add another 25 tonnes of coal for making the cement and you’re talking 150 tonnes of coal per turbine. Now if we are to build 350,000 wind turbines a year (or a smaller number of bigger ones), just to keep up with increasing energy demand, that will require 50 million tonnes of coal a year. That’s about half the EU’s hard coal–mining output.

Forgive me if you have heard this before, but I have a commercial interest in coal. Now it appears that the black stuff also gives me a commercial interest in ‘clean’, green wind power.

The point of running through these numbers is to demonstrate that it is utterly futile, on a priori grounds, even to think that wind power can make any significant contribution to world energy supply, let alone to emissions reductions, without ruining the planet. As the late David MacKay pointed out years back, the arithmetic is against such unreliable renewables.

The truth is, if you want to power civilisation with fewer greenhouse gas emissions, then you should focus on shifting power generation, heat and transport to natural gas, the economically recoverable reserves of which — thanks to horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing — are much more abundant than we dreamed they ever could be. It is also the lowest-emitting of the fossil fuels, so the emissions intensity of our wealth creation can actually fall while our wealth continues to increase. Good.

And let’s put some of that burgeoning wealth in nuclear, fission and fusion, so that it can take over from gas in the second half of this century. That is an engineerable, clean future. Everything else is a political displacement activity, one that is actually counterproductive as a climate policy and, worst of all, shamefully robs the poor to make the rich even richer.

www.spectator.co.uk/2017/05/wind-turbines-are-neither-clean-nor-green-and-they-provide-zero-global-energy


Sent from my iPhone using Lake Ontario United mobile app

[muskiedreams]

Whenever there is big money involved, they try to keep the environmental concerns to a minimum. And if the environment suffers later, taxpayers are the losers. They will end up footing the bill to fix the problem and/or suffer the consequences. The businessmen will walk away with fat pockets and happy lawyers and the politicians will end up with big campaign contributions and fat offshore accounts.

 

Although burning natural gas is considered less damaging to the environment, fracking can be very damaging to the environment if done irresponsibly. Responsibility tends to go out the window when big money, political power and corruption and govt. incentives are involved. Fracking has already shown that it does cause serious environmental issues, including ground and surface water pollution and air pollution. Also there is no transparency and likely not enough environmental monitoring. Chemicals that are used are kept secret and some remains in the environment. Who knows what all the health and environmental risks are? The footprint on the surface may be small but the underground impact is largely unknown. There has been reports of ground water and surface water contamination as well as multiple small (so far) earthquakes in some locations where extensive fracking is being done. So landowners, for the most part, who don't have mineral rights, have no control over what happens under their property.

 

Natural gas may be a good alternative to coal but sources other than fracking should be used. Meanwhile we must continue to research other energy sources as well as continuing to reduce usage.

[chinook35]

It looks like the sportspeople and conservationists have won this round. It was just announced on the news in Watertown , that the company has withdrawn their application for the Galloo Island windfarm . Here is the story :

http://www.wwnytv.com/story/39934263/breaking-galloo-island-wind-project-withdrawn#.XF4Q_QaRTi4.aolmail
Sent from my iPhone using Lake Ontario United mobile app

Edited February 8, 2019 by chinook35

[rolmops]

On 1/27/2019 at 12:46 AM, Fishnut said:

From May 2017. When faced with information such as this climate alarmists resort to their catchphrases of '97% consensus', peer review', '10 years to act' (a favorite of theirs for over 40 years!), 'denier' etc. What they usually avoid is presenting actual facts as a counterargument.
The anti-CO2 line in climate changes is a scam. Always has been, always will be.
...............................................
Wind turbines are neither clean nor green and they provide zero global energy

We urgently need to stop the ecological posturing and invest in gas and nuclear
Matt Ridley


Tantrum of the climate alarmists
Brendan O'Neill

The Global Wind Energy Council recently released its latest report, excitedly boasting that ‘the proliferation of wind energy into the global power market continues at a furious pace, after it was revealed that more than 54 gigawatts of clean renewable wind power was installed across the global market last year’.

You may have got the impression from announcements like that, and from the obligatory pictures of wind turbines in any BBC story or airport advert about energy, that wind power is making a big contribution to world energy today. You would be wrong. Its contribution is still, after decades — nay centuries — of development, trivial to the point of irrelevance.

Here’s a quiz; no conferring. To the nearest whole number, what percentage of the world’s energy consumption was supplied by wind power in 2014, the last year for which there are reliable figures? Was it 20 per cent, 10 per cent or 5 per cent? None of the above: it was 0 per cent. That is to say, to the nearest whole number, there is still no wind power on Earth.

Even put together, wind and photovoltaic solar are supplying less than 1 per cent of global energy demand. From the International Energy Agency’s 2016 Key Renewables Trends, we can see that wind provided 0.46 per cent of global energy consumption in 2014, and solar and tide combined provided 0.35 per cent. Remember this is total energy, not just electricity, which is less than a fifth of all final energy, the rest being the solid, gaseous, and liquid fuels that do the heavy lifting for heat, transport and industry.

Such numbers are not hard to find, but they don’t figure prominently in reports on energy derived from the unreliables lobby (solar and wind). Their trick is to hide behind the statement that close to 14 per cent of the world’s energy is renewable, with the implication that this is wind and solar. In fact the vast majority — three quarters — is biomass (mainly wood), and a very large part of that is ‘traditional biomass’; sticks and logs and dung burned by the poor in their homes to cook with. Those people need that energy, but they pay a big price in health problems caused by smoke inhalation.

Even in rich countries playing with subsidised wind and solar, a huge slug of their renewable energy comes from wood and hydro, the reliable renewables. Meanwhile, world energy demand has been growing at about 2 per cent a year for nearly 40 years. Between 2013 and 2014, again using International Energy Agency data, it grew by just under 2,000 terawatt-hours.

If wind turbines were to supply all of that growth but no more, how many would need to be built each year? The answer is nearly 350,000, since a two-megawatt turbine can produce about 0.005 terawatt-hours per annum. That’s one-and-a-half times as many as have been built in the world since governments started pouring consumer funds into this so-called industry in the early 2000s.

At a density of, very roughly, 50 acres per megawatt, typical for wind farms, that many turbines would require a land area greater than the British Isles, including Ireland. Every year. If we kept this up for 50 years, we would have covered every square mile of a land area the size of Russia with wind farms. Remember, this would be just to fulfil the new demand for energy, not to displace the vast existing supply of energy from fossil fuels, which currently supply 80 per cent of global energy needs.

Do not take refuge in the idea that wind turbines could become more efficient. There is a limit to how much energy you can extract from a moving fluid, the Betz limit, and wind turbines are already close to it. Their effectiveness (the load factor, to use the engineering term) is determined by the wind that is available, and that varies at its own sweet will from second to second, day to day, year to year.

As machines, wind turbines are pretty good already; the problem is the wind resource itself, and we cannot change that. It’s a fluctuating stream of low–density energy. Mankind stopped using it for mission-critical transport and mechanical power long ago, for sound reasons. It’s just not very good.

As for resource consumption and environmental impacts, the direct effects of wind turbines — killing birds and bats, sinking concrete foundations deep into wild lands — is bad enough. But out of sight and out of mind is the dirty pollution generated in Inner Mongolia by the mining of rare-earth metals for the magnets in the turbines. This generates toxic and radioactive waste on an epic scale, which is why the phrase ‘clean energy’ is such a sick joke and ministers should be ashamed every time it passes their lips.

It gets worse. Wind turbines, apart from the fibreglass blades, are made mostly of steel, with concrete bases. They need about 200 times as much material per unit of capacity as a modern combined cycle gas turbine. Steel is made with coal, not just to provide the heat for smelting ore, but to supply the carbon in the alloy. Cement is also often made using coal. The machinery of ‘clean’ renewables is the output of the fossil fuel economy, and largely the coal economy.

A two-megawatt wind turbine weighs about 250 tonnes, including the tower, nacelle, rotor and blades. Globally, it takes about half a tonne of coal to make a tonne of steel. Add another 25 tonnes of coal for making the cement and you’re talking 150 tonnes of coal per turbine. Now if we are to build 350,000 wind turbines a year (or a smaller number of bigger ones), just to keep up with increasing energy demand, that will require 50 million tonnes of coal a year. That’s about half the EU’s hard coal–mining output.

Forgive me if you have heard this before, but I have a commercial interest in coal. Now it appears that the black stuff also gives me a commercial interest in ‘clean’, green wind power.

The point of running through these numbers is to demonstrate that it is utterly futile, on a priori grounds, even to think that wind power can make any significant contribution to world energy supply, let alone to emissions reductions, without ruining the planet. As the late David MacKay pointed out years back, the arithmetic is against such unreliable renewables.

The truth is, if you want to power civilisation with fewer greenhouse gas emissions, then you should focus on shifting power generation, heat and transport to natural gas, the economically recoverable reserves of which — thanks to horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing — are much more abundant than we dreamed they ever could be. It is also the lowest-emitting of the fossil fuels, so the emissions intensity of our wealth creation can actually fall while our wealth continues to increase. Good.

And let’s put some of that burgeoning wealth in nuclear, fission and fusion, so that it can take over from gas in the second half of this century. That is an engineerable, clean future. Everything else is a political displacement activity, one that is actually counterproductive as a climate policy and, worst of all, shamefully robs the poor to make the rich even richer.

www.spectator.co.uk/2017/05/wind-turbines-are-neither-clean-nor-green-and-they-provide-zero-global-energy


Sent from my iPhone using Lake Ontario United mobile app

sorry to burst your balloon. But your numbers are incorrect to say the least. According to US government data for 2018 the overall amount of renewable energy sourced electricity is over 17 %. Currently Wind mills supply us with 7% of our energy. Your article has a distinct big oil/coal flavor that reminds me of  the tobacco companies promotion of cigarettes as "being good for you"

Alternative energy such as wind power is the future, but big money, oil and coal fight hard to discredit this fact like they did with asbestos, lead and tobacco. They would rather see miners have black long disease than giving up their profits.

I understand and respect people who do not like a wind mill in their backyard, although most of them agree that alternative energy sources are much needed to save our environment.

I do not like the spreading of lies in order to change public opinion. The Russians have done enough damage playing that game.

Down below are some USA government provided statistics.

Wind energy was the source of about 6% of total U.S. electricity generation and about 37% of electricity generation from renewable energy in 2017. Wind turbines convert wind energy into electricity.

Electricity in the United States - Energy Explained, Your Guide To ... - EIA

 

https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/index.php?page=electricity_in_the_united_states

 

Oh , in case you wondered about why gasoline is so cheap these days. Big oil is scared of the increased popularity of electric vehicles. Cheap gas is how they try to destroy Tesla, and that is why they try to depict wind turbines as polluting useless junk. When you think of clean air and water, think of your children and grand children and the world that you leave behind for them to live in.

Edited February 9, 2019 by rolmops

[chinook35]

sorry to burst your balloon. But your numbers are incorrect to say the least. According to US government data for 2018 the overall amount of renewable energy sourced electricity is over 17 %. Currently Wind mills supply us with 7% of our energy. Your article has a distinct big oil/coal flavor that reminds me of  the tobacco companies promotion of cigarettes as "being good for you"

Alternative energy such as wind power is the future, but big money, oil and coal fight hard to discredit this fact like they did with asbestos, lead and tobacco. They would rather see miners have black long disease than giving up their profits.

I understand and respect people who do not like a wind mill in their backyard, although most of them agree that alternative energy sources are much needed to save our environment.

I do not like the spreading of lies in order to change public opinion. The Russians have done enough damage playing that game.

Down below are some USA government provided statistics.

Wind energy was the source of about 6% of total U.S. electricity generation and about 37% of electricity generation from renewable energy in 2017. Wind turbines convert wind energy into electricity.

Electricity in the United States - Energy Explained, Your Guide To ... - EIA

  https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/index.php?page=electricity_in_the_united_states   Oh , in case you wondered about why gasoline is so cheap these days. Big oil is scared of the increased popularity of electric vehicles. Cheap gas is how they try to destroy Tesla, and that is why they try to depict wind turbines as polluting useless junk. When you think of clean air and water, think of your children and grand children and the world that you leave behind for them to live in.

Just got around to reading this. I guess government statistics can’t be scewed , only statistics from big oil and coal. Lmao. We ARE thinking of our kids and grandkids. When these monstrosities reach the end of their useful life , we will have to remove their carcasses and when I say we , I mean the taxpayers. There is no provision in any application for the clean up of spills and removal of old infrastructure building these things near and over water should be outlawed. At least the people of Cape Vincent and Henderson have won , at least for the time being

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Lake Ontario United mobile app

[jimski2]

With our hot weather our power system cut our local power system voltage to 107 volts as New York City customers needed our local power for their customers. This caused higher amperage to supply the wattage needed for our air conditioning systems. Think of the dozens of power plants shut down for smoke. We need replacement power now and it will be wind or solar. Europe is way ahead of us and the obstructionists are causing big problems.


Sent from my iPhone using Lake Ontario United mobile app

[chinook35]

The only "Obstructions" that I am aware of are concerning the placement of the turbines . There are plenty of rural areas that have the potential for wind farms ( look at Lowville NY ) . There is no reason to place these ugly towers in peoples front yards,  Galloo Island would have made a picturesque view from Henderson Harbor . And placing them 0ffshore is beyond unacceptable . The environmental damage that could result makes coal fired power plants seem safe . I will continue to "obstruct" any proposal that places these things in Lake Ontario or  on any adjacent property that is populated . And on a further note , these wind farm promoters seem to dodge the question of mortality to wildlife . They totally ignored the fact that bald eagles and a certain species of bat nest and inhabit Galloo Island . It's all about the $$$$ , they have no interest in the harm they could cause

[Lucky13]

People around Lowville have front lawns, too.  Why should the rural areas be despoiled to generate power for the masses in the cities.  Build the towers in the urban areas that will use the power, always seems windy to me at the top  of a tall building.  Oh, I forgot, NIMBY!

[weave]

I agree that these things should be located in population centers. Put them where the consumers are.


Sent from my iPhone using Lake Ontario United